As set out at the August meeting the Board will evaluate the bids, if more than one is received, and recommend it's preferred bidder to the Trust. Full explanation will be given why at the meeting. Both bidders are fully aware of the process.

Amberexile wrote: September 8th, 2023, 3:03 pm What I want from bidders is a clear plan and a commitment to the funding to take the club to the championship before selling off to a bidder who can take us forward.

I would prefer them not to need to be propped up financially by the Trust during this period.

Chepstow'sFine wrote: September 8th, 2023, 3:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 8th, 2023, 3:03 pm What I want from bidders is a clear plan and a commitment to the funding to take the club to the championship before selling off to a bidder who can take us forward.

I would prefer them not to need to be propped up financially by the Trust during this period.

To be fair I don't think there's a lot we could prop up financially right now.

landinho wrote: September 8th, 2023, 2:41 pm The other threads are huge and were about other things (claiming there would be no vote etc…) so starting one here for discussing the upcoming vote now it is announced

Can we all keep it civil and stick to discussing what we want from bidders and the board, in the interests of NCAFC?

Breaking down what we know as of right now:

Club statement
Issued 8am 08/Sept - https://www.newport-county.co.uk/news/2 ... ub-update/

Argus article on the topic
https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/sport ... investors/

Bid query
Colin Everett has given the following response to a question about multiple bids

As set out at the August meeting the Board will evaluate the bids, if more than one is received, and recommend it's preferred bidder to the Trust. Full explanation will be given why at the meeting. Both bidders are fully aware of the process.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 8th, 2023, 3:29 pm

landinho wrote: September 8th, 2023, 2:41 pm The other threads are huge and were about other things (claiming there would be no vote etc…) so starting one here for discussing the upcoming vote now it is announced

Can we all keep it civil and stick to discussing what we want from bidders and the board, in the interests of NCAFC?

Breaking down what we know as of right now:

Club statement
Issued 8am 08/Sept - https://www.newport-county.co.uk/news/2 ... ub-update/

Argus article on the topic
https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/sport ... investors/

Bid query
Colin Everett has given the following response to a question about multiple bids

As set out at the August meeting the Board will evaluate the bids, if more than one is received, and recommend it's preferred bidder to the Trust. Full explanation will be given why at the meeting. Both bidders are fully aware of the process.

A number of points arising.

I have no problem with the concept of the incumbent board having a preferred bidder.

The first point is that whether the board have a preferred bidder or not, it is surely for the whole trust to choose. It is not clear whether that option is open.

Secondly, who gets to vote? Just people who can attend on the night? People who can attend on the night and people who appoint a proxy able to attend? Or all Trust members? It should be the latter of the three but again who knows.

Thirdly anyone who thinks they can evaluate which they believe to be the best bid, if given only a biased presentation on the night is mistaken. Bias especially unconscious bias, is extremely difficult to overcome.

There is only one proper way to do this. Every trust member should be sent and/or emailed both bids, if two bids there be, with all the details. The meeting on the 28th should be for both bidders to make a presentation. The meeting should be broadcast via the internet. And then everyone entitled to vote should be given the opportunity to do so.

And if anyone tries the excuse that the cost is prohibitive then frankly email is free, even a techniphobe like me can broadcast via Youtube, and in any event the entire future of our club depends upon this.

lowandhard wrote: September 8th, 2023, 4:35 pm Well I think that bids should be put before members in terms of their general nature so that a choice can be preferred by them - not the board who may have motives of their own, let the bidders speak.
I find it absolutely astonishing that having guided the ship onto the rocks that those left on the bridge would be considered the best judges of the best salvage team.

Amberexile wrote: September 8th, 2023, 3:24 pm

Chepstow'sFine wrote: September 8th, 2023, 3:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 8th, 2023, 3:03 pm What I want from bidders is a clear plan and a commitment to the funding to take the club to the championship before selling off to a bidder who can take us forward.

I would prefer them not to need to be propped up financially by the Trust during this period.

To be fair I don't think there's a lot we could prop up financially right now.

To be realistic, they seem to be expecting it and that is a red flag to me.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: September 8th, 2023, 5:01 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 8th, 2023, 3:24 pm

Chepstow'sFine wrote: September 8th, 2023, 3:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 8th, 2023, 3:03 pm What I want from bidders is a clear plan and a commitment to the funding to take the club to the championship before selling off to a bidder who can take us forward.

I would prefer them not to need to be propped up financially by the Trust during this period.

To be fair I don't think there's a lot we could prop up financially right now.

To be realistic, they seem to be expecting it and that is a red flag to me.

There is nearly always a cost if you want to retain your seat at the top table.

excessbee wrote: September 8th, 2023, 4:56 pm I would suggest that the ship was from the outset underpowered, partly because the fuel in the tank ran dry. The supporters could not or would not top up the tank. Yes, money was lost, but that was partially inevitable owing to the unsustainable nature of a fan funded club. We were spoilt by a few years of lucky cup draws and, at the time, some shrewd but expensive management. It could never last. I'm personally glad we (hopefully) won't be limping along for much longer.

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 8th, 2023, 5:31 pm

excessbee wrote: September 8th, 2023, 4:56 pm I would suggest that the ship was from the outset underpowered, partly because the fuel in the tank ran dry. The supporters could not or would not top up the tank. Yes, money was lost, but that was partially inevitable owing to the unsustainable nature of a fan funded club. We were spoilt by a few years of lucky cup draws and, at the time, some shrewd but expensive management. It could never last. I'm personally glad we (hopefully) won't be limping along for much longer.

Well said.

Personally I hope someone requests a pre meeting to remove trust subscriptions, and then see wether either bid is still sustainable, without being propped up by aging subscription payers, as there will be only icebergs ahead............